Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25487353›Full record

Trial reportBMC research notes2014

Intermediate care in nursing home after hospital admission: a randomized controlled trial with one year follow-up.

Jo Kåre Herfjord, Torhild Heggestad, Håkon Ersland, Anette Hylen Ranhoff

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC research notes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions to Promote Early Discharge and Avoid Inappropriate Hospital (Re)Admission: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jo Kåre Herfjord
Torhild Heggestad
Håkon Ersland
Anette Hylen RanhoffDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen and Kavli Research Centre for Geriatrics and Dementia, Haraldsplass Hospital, Ulriksdal 8, 5009 Bergen, Norway. ahranhoff@yahoo.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntermediate care is intended to reduce hospital admissions and facilitate early discharge. In Norway, a model was developed with transfer to intermediate care shortly after hospital admission. Efficacy and safety of this model have not been studied previously.In a parallel-group randomized controlled trial, patients over 70 years living at home before admission were eligible if clinically stable, without need for surgical treatment and deemed suited for intermediate care by attending physician. Intervention group patients were transferred to a nursing home unit with increased staff and multidisciplinary assessment, for a maximum stay of three weeks. Patients in the control group received usual care in hospital. Blinding to group assignment was not possible.The primary outcome was number of days living at home in a follow-up period of 365 days. Secondary outcomes were mortality, hospital admissions, need for residential care and home care services. Data were obtained from patient records and registers.

results376 patients were included, 74% female and mean age 84 years. There was no significant differences between intervention (n=190) and control group (n=186) for number of days living at home (253.7 vs 256.5, p=0.80) or days in hospital (10.4 vs 10.5, p=0.748). Intervention group patients spent less time in nursing home (40.6 days vs. 55.0, p=0.046), and more patients lived independently without home health care services (31.6% vs 19.9%, p=0.007). For orthopaedic patients (n=128), mortality was higher in the intervention group; 15 intervention patients and 7 controls died (25.1% vs 10.3%, p=0.049). There was no significant difference in one-year mortality for medical patients (n=150) or the total study population.

conclusionsThis model of rapid transfer to intermediate care did not significantly influence number of days living at home during one year follow-up, but reduced demand for nursing home care and need for home health care services. In post-hoc analysis mortality was increased for orthopedic patients.

trial registrationThe trial was registered 26. July 2013 at Current Controlled Trials and assigned with registration number ISRCTN21608185.

Indexed as

HospitalizationPatient AdmissionAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleNursing Homes

Identifiers

PMID25487353
PMCPMC4295396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.